White River Valley Historical Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
916071543
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Auburn, WA, USA
Phone
2532887433
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$108,473
Expenses
$135,683
Assets
$1,187,573
Liabilities
$797

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TOM GINSBURG (PRESIDENT)
  • DANI CRIVELLO-CHANG (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KIM PERRY (SECRETARY)
  • DENNIS GRAD (BOARD MEMBER)
  • ERIKA MOORE (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide public education through the collection, preservation, research, interpretation, and exhibition of artifacts, documents, and photographs relevant to the white river valley region.

What it reported doing in 2024

As part of supporting preservation in the auburn, wa area, the white river valley museum leases the historic 67-acre mary olson farm with the intention of raising funds to restore and develop the farm as a living history and environmental learning site opening to public use in 2010. It is listed on the national register of historic sites and is a king county landmark. Additionally, the society advises the city of auburn on issues of historic preservation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.9%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 51.9%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.75; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.9% of revenue deployed · 51.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $70K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.